The case for a name change

The following is a letter I wrote over spring break after thinking about, and discussing the proposed name change with individuals. Following the letter are comments that I have received back from some of the Presidents of various Alumni Associations sharing their thoughts. I have removed their names in the event that they did not wish to be identified.

To The Chancellor and MSM-UMR Alumni Association Presidents:

Recently the chancellor of our University, the University of Missouri - Rolla, made a specific proposal for a change of the school's name. While I believe that a name change may be necessary and could even be a considerable advantage for the school, I do not agree with the chancellor's name selection. This is a sentiment that I feel is backed by the majority of the student body as well as various alumni, and most of all individuals "looking in" that are not currently part of the UMR system. Discussion over the last two weeks about the proposed Missouri University of Science and Technology with individuals has produced countless variations of,

"Missouri University of Technology? That sounds like a tech school." or,

"I thought UMR's focus was engineering?" or,

"If they want to change the name, why isn't engineering in there?"

Repeatedly, the new name was not looked upon with confusion and opposition because it was just a name change, but rather the choice of the name. I believe the explanation for this is actually very clear. First, institutions in the Midwest that carry the phrase "technology" in their title have traditionally been recognized as 2 year vocational schools and or non accredited institutions. And while it is possible to find a small handful of schools that may not be defined this way, I can virtually guarantee that such schools have an extensive history to their name. Thus having the word "technology" in their name is not a hindrance because they are well known due to the history of their school and its long established name, not simply the word "technology". Consequently, I submit that altering an institution's name with the word "technology" in the Midwest will at best make little to no difference, or at worst even harm the university's image until such time that it can distance itself from its own name and the vocational stigma that comes with it.

In spite of this, I believe that this is not the number one problem with the new name. I believe we can all agree that any name change is for two basic reasons. One, to better capture the essence and character of our university in the title of school; and two, in so doing increase enrollment by attracting prospective students that would naturally find themselves at a school such as ours, but might not be aware of who and what we are. Thus I suggest, that if there is one singular term to describe the University of Missouri - Rolla that I might use, or that a professor might use, or even an individual completely unrelated to the school might use to describe us; if such a word exists, should it not be in the name we are so desperately trying to redefine? I believe this word is obvious to anyone who even remotely knows about our school. The second I walk up to an individual and you say, "I go to UMR", their next most likely question will be, "Are you studying engineering?"

Engineering. This is the word that is so closely related to our beloved school. And rightly so, we all know the statistics, over 80% of our students are in an engineering related field. We all had the recruiters telling us this. How many current students or alumni are either engineers or scientists? Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Architectural, Biological, Nuclear, and Computer Engineers along with Biologists, Computer Scientists, Chemists, and Physicists make up virtually all of our campus. We can debate on the variations of word order all day long, but there is absolutely no reason that Engineering should not be in the title of our fine school if we are truly looking for a more descriptive name, much less in favor of "technology."

So I ask, and even plead with you to reconsider the name we choose. Our school really could benefit both in enrollment, and world wide identification with a more descriptive and informative name. But if we truly are looking for the most identifiable name, it must contain what we are all thinking each day when we look at the current name...we are engineers, and this is THE Engineering School.

Sincerely,

David Schmuck
Electrical Engineering Undergraduate
University of Missouri - Rolla

As an addendum to this letter, I submit that an excellent choice would be the Missouri University of Science and Engineering. Not only is it a virtual cousin of the chancellor's choice that still captures the essence of our school, but the acronym of MUSE could easily be portrayed to demonstrate the muse of inspiration that comes with our school.

***********************

David:

Thank you for your letter. It is always helpful to know you are not the only one in opposition to the proposed name change.

I have been fighting the proposal since its announcement in October. I feel it will be one of the most damaging decisions made on the campus in a very long time. I have written two letters to and met once face to face with Dr. Carney, met and spoken to Jay Goff on several occasions, talked to the provost, talked to Darlene Ramsey, the president of the alumni association, talked Lindasy Bagnall and Marianne Ward's ears off in the alumni office, and written a guest editorial in the Springfield News-Leader.

And I have given up.

I have firmly come to the conclusion that nothing I have done or can do will stop this from happening. I am now resigned to the fact that my alma mater will cease to exist on January 1, 2008. I hold no hope whatsoever that the Board of Curators will do anything but rubber stamp
the recommendation which will be presented to them this week. In fact, Dr, Carney would have been risking his professional career if he weren't sure he would be supported in this endeavor.

When I met with Chancellor Carney in January, I told him that even though I would continue to speak out against the name change until it was decided, I would continue to support the university as I had before. I had, in fact, considered that my trip to campus in November
to teach a hazardous materials class in the chemical engineering department could be my last. It was a conversation with one of the students I had in the previous year's class during the department phoneathon that convinced me that doing that would only hurt the
students, who, after all, were the reason I was doing the class to begin with. My donation level will not change, although I will never again give a single dime of unspecified money to the university again. Donations to scholarships, design teams, and other efforts will be my way of supporting the students while keeping the administration from diverting it to efforts like this.

I feel sorry for you and your fellow students now attending classes. For me, the school will always be UMR, just as it was always MSM to my father-in-law. You, however, will have a choice to make as to what to
call it.

As to your suggestion of MUSE. I agree that shifting the focus of the university toward technical research will de detrimental to the overall vision of the university. I also feel the backbone of the university, engineering, will suffer as a result. I only hope that, in the future, I am proven wrong.

A proud member of the UMR Class of 1991

***********************

I personally think it is a lost cause. The only hope is for the board of Curators to not approve it - might be too late by now.

I think there was a decision made prior to the poll, and the poll was Engineered to come out like they wanted. They should have asked 2 questions - Should the University change its name? And 2nd, if the name were to change, what would you like to see it changed to?

The whole renaming thing is a joke to me. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. Until UMR actually is a top 5 Research University - the name doesn't really matter. I can't see Stephen Hawking joining our Physics Department because we change the name to Missouri-S&T. All the University is doing is spending money to change the name and outside image of UMR. No actual talent or funding will be achieved through this path - maybe a few misguided High School students will be fooled into coming to MoST. The same core group of students will continue to attend. My bet is that alumni donations drop overall because of this debacle. They had the chance to seal the deal and go back to MSM, but didn't - I think the school will ultimately pay the price and the name will change again in 10 to 15 years. UMR was listed at the bottom of a survey for student satisfaction - renaming the university without fixing the problems will only get MoST to the bottom of the list.

I am a big NASCAR fan and I see a parallel between this UMR renaming event and sponsorship of a NASCAR. UMR is like the car that rarely wins, but finishes strong every week, not a huge following, but people know they are a solid team. UMR wants to be seen as the front runners each week. Repainting the car and getting a new sponsor won't get you there. You have to start with fundamentals - get a good car, build a good team, get a good driver/leader. Once that happens, the car/driver/team will start winning races. With those wins, comes the fans (Students), the sponsors (logo, corporate funding), and the glory (being #1).

Bottom Line: Make the University a top 5 Research Institution first by building a winning team/institution - then worry about a name and logo.

Those are my personal thought and do not represent the thoughts of my Section.

Later and Good Luck.